Talk:Santa Cruz Operation/Archives/2021

This is an archive of past discussions about Santa Cruz Operation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Messy references in the article

Hello, anybody hanging around being able to clear the messy references section? Thank you foryour time. Lotje (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lotje: It's in progress, by me, as my edit summary on the big expansion indicated. By the end of today it should all be good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: big relief :-) I do not like these red texts in the articles. Thanks! Lotje (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in many ways the Santa Cruz Operation, a computer software company, reflected the nature of the place for which it was named?
- ALT1:... that the Santa Cruz Operation prospered from the "open systems" movement but fell victim to the "open source" movement?
- ALT2:... that one of the founders of the Santa Cruz Operation later said that "we had every type of relationship with Microsoft you can imagine"?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sather Professorship of Classical Literature

5x expanded by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 13:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

As someone who saw this article years ago, it's great to see how far it has gone. The copyvio detector detected two quoted block quotes, which are appropriately used in the article so I can safely disregard that. I'm glad to approve this nomination, though I'm a bit disinclined to go with the first proposed hook; I'm inclined to go with ALT2 since it would be more relatable to non-open source nerds, but I want to see what others think. Otherwise though, congratulations! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)